Intermap

By Craig Hayden

Joshua Fouts, Senior Fellow for the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs and the chief global strategist for Dancing Ink Productions, recently posted a short article on the Policy Innovations publication of the Carnegie Council with the title – “New Ethics of Public Diplomacy.” Fouts asserts an increasingly common refrain, that public diplomacy should be about “dialogue” and not about “messaging.” He draws from his report, co-authored with Rita King on “Digital Diplomacy” – that communication must be both “authentic” and “ethical.”

I respect the position that Fouts stakes out in his article. But I think he leaves the question of ethics unanswered – other than it requires some “nuance.” He does draw attention to an enduring issue that plagues the intersection of strategic communication and public diplomacy programs in the United States. In a time of unprecedented transparency of international action – nation-states must act in accordance with their words. At the same time, they must contend with the perception of their status as nation-states engaged in acts of influence. Global audiences are sensitized to being persuaded and suspicious of overt attempts to win influence. The double-bind of being ethical in PD means trying to cultivate credibility with communication that many feel is a priori a cynical attempt at perception management.
continue reading…

by Craig Hayden

I have to admit, I was not among the esteemed body of attendees who descended on Howard Gilman Foundation’s White Oak conference center in Florida last month to discuss public diplomacy. Thanks to blogging – I get to provide some input. The following is my reaction to some of the recommendations that emerged from the meeting.

Based on the report, I think the most glaring item missing is an operational definition of PD that draws together all the disparate elements (that the U.S. government wants to draw together, at least) and contains some sense of what P.D is supposed to “do.” That said, I don’t want to rehash the debate about what PD “is” or “is not.” That’s increasingly unproductive for academic analysts, and potentially divisive for tying together institutional competencies.

The reason I say this is because there are very real differences, both in terms of policy and ethics, between strategic communication (advocacy), international broadcasting (journalism), and exchange/cultural diplomacy that are not easily reconciled in obvious ways. Sure, we can follow Matt Armstrong’s lead and assume they are all tactics in a strategic emphasis on “engagement.” – but if global communication is increasingly structured by contests of credibility (which the report acknowledges) – then we must assume that some forms of PD can potentially damage the credibility of other PD practices if they are too tightly (and visibly) bound.

However, I’m not sure how much of that matters anymore. There is much discussion in the report about “structure” – such as the need for a coordinating agency, an informed leader, and broad-based government (and private sector) involvement. While institutional arrangements are crucial – I still wonder if org chart artifacts like the BBG’s “firewall” function that like they are supposed to in preserving the integrity of US international broadcasting campaigns, or, for that matter any aspect of U.S. public diplomacy. People with more current knowledge on trends in IB might speak to this, but I still hear anecdotal evidence about how even vaunted programs like VOA are now “propaganda” in some audiences. Ok. Back to White Oak. Here are some thoughts on a few of the points:
continue reading…